Misrepresentation and Nonadherence Regarding COVID-19 Public Health Measures

IMPORTANCE: The effectiveness of public health measures implemented to mitigate the spread and impact of SARS-CoV-2 relies heavily on honesty and adherence from the general public. OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency of, reasons for, and factors associated with misrepresentation and nonadherence regarding COVID-19 public health measures. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This survey study recruited a national, nonprobability sample of US adults to participate in an online survey using Qualtrics online panels (participation rate, 1811 of 2260 [80.1%]) from December 8 to 23, 2021. The survey contained screening questions to allow for a targeted sample of one-third who had had COVID-19, one-third who had not had COVID-19 and were vaccinated, and one-third who had not had COVID-19 and were unvaccinated. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey assessed 9 different types of misrepresentation and nonadherence related to COVID-19 public health measures and the reasons underlying such behaviors. Additional questions measured COVID-19–related beliefs and behaviors and demographic characteristics. RESULTS: The final sample included 1733 participants. The mean (SD) participant age was 41 (15) years and the sample predominantly identified as female (1143 of 1732 [66.0%]) and non-Hispanic White (1151 of 1733 [66.4%]). Seven hundred twenty-one participants (41.6%) reported misrepresentation and/or nonadherence in at least 1 of the 9 items; telling someone they were with or about to be with in person that they were taking more COVID-19 preventive measures than they actually were (420 of 1726 [24.3%]) and breaking quarantine rules (190 of 845 [22.5%]) were the most common manifestations. The most commonly endorsed reasons included wanting life to feel normal and wanting to exercise personal freedom. All age groups younger than 60 years (eg, odds ratio for those aged 18-29 years, 4.87 [95% CI, 3.27-7.34]) and those who had greater distrust in science (odds ratio, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.05-1.23]) had significantly higher odds of misrepresentation and/or nonadherence for at least 1 of the 9 items. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey study of US adults, nearly half of participants reported misrepresentation and/or nonadherence regarding public health measures against COVID-19. Future work is needed to examine strategies for communicating the consequences of misrepresentation and nonadherence and to address contributing factors

Measurement properties of the Inventory of Cognitive Bias in Medicine (ICBM)

© 2008 Sladek et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Background Understanding how doctors think may inform both undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. Developing such an understanding requires valid and reliable measurement tools. We examined the measurement properties of the Inventory of Cognitive Bias in Medicine (ICBM), designed to tap this domain with specific reference to medicine, but with previously questionable measurement properties. Methods First year postgraduate entry medical students at Flinders University, and trainees (postgraduate doctors in any specialty) and consultants (N = 348) based at two teaching hospitals in Adelaide, Australia, completed the ICBM and a questionnaire measuring thinking styles (Rational Experiential Inventory). Results Questions with the lowest item-total correlation were deleted from the original 22 item ICBM, although the resultant 17 item scale only marginally improved internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.61 compared with 0.57). A factor analysis identified two scales, both achieving only α = 0.58. Construct validity was assessed by correlating Rational Experiential Inventory scores with the ICBM, with some positive correlations noted for students only, suggesting that those who are naïve to the knowledge base required to "successfully" respond to the ICBM may profit by a thinking style in tune with logical reasoning. Conclusion The ICBM failed to demonstrate adequate content validity, internal consistency and construct validity. It is unlikely that improvements can be achieved without considered attention to both the audience for which it is designed and its item content. The latter may need to involve both removal of some items deemed to measure multiple biases and the addition of new items in the attempt to survey the range of biases that may compromise medical decision making

Predictors of patients’ choices for breast-conserving therapy or mastectomy: a prospective study

A study was undertaken to describe the treatment preferences and choices of patients with breast cancer, and to identify predictors of undergoing breast-conserving therapy (BCT) or mastectomy (MT). Consecutive patients with stage I/II breast cancer were eligible. Information about predictor variables, including socio-demographics, quality of life, patients' concerns, decision style, decisional conflict and perceived preference of the surgeon was collected at baseline, before decision making and surgery. Patients received standard information (n = 88) or a decision aid (n = 92) as a supplement to support decision making. A total of 180 patients participated in the study. In all, 72% decided to have BCT (n = 123); 28% chose MT (n = 49). Multivariate analysis showed that what patients perceived to be their surgeons' preference and the patients' concerns regarding breast loss and local tumour recurrence were the strongest predictors of treatment preference. Treatment preferences in itself were highly predictive of the treatment decision. The decision aid did riot influence treatment choice. The results of this study demonstrate that patients' concerns and their perceptions of the treatment preferences of the physicians are important factors in patients' decision making. Adequate information and communication are essential to base treatment decisions on realistic concerns, and the treatment preferences of patients, (C) 2004 Cancer Research U

Impact of prior COVID-19 infection on perceptions about the benefit and safety of COVID-19 vaccines

In this online survey of 1,733 US adults in December-2021, respondents believed COVID-19 vaccines are less beneficial and less safe for someone who had already had COVID-19. Those who experienced COVID-19 after being vaccinated believed that the vaccines are less beneficial and less safe than those who had not. Findings highlight the need to better communicate evolving evidence of COVID-19 vaccine benefit and safety and to tailor communications to peoples’ COVID-19 history and vaccination status

Race, Quality of Care and Patient Outcomes: What Can We Learn from the Department of Veterans Affairs?

Racial segregation, Health and health care markets, Discrimination, I00,